Rutar

I couldn't resist.

Kougar

Memory usage: From what overviews of the OS say this is the design. Unless you can point out specific instances, claiming Vista is a memory hog in general is meaningless. Vista was designed to prefetch and preload and cache frequently used programs and tasks based on user habits, even if this means pre-loading a program into memory before a user runs it themselves. From my standpoint of course that would use up memory... it should also be a simple matter to dump or overwrite cached memory data on a moments notice if memory space begins to run low. Paul Thurorott's overview of Vista had some of this info.

I'm not calling Vista efficient, I'm aware that the OS effectively doubles the real minium and recommended amount of RAM compared to XP. But judging by past history, what would ya expect from an OS with "Windows" in the name? It doesn't help Vista has to be built to work out of the box with the widest range of technology that has ever existed. Some distros of linux can be much more efficient, but they still don't work with as wide a range of hardware/devices that Vista must.

UAC, that seems to be a damned if you do, damned if you don't thing. Why was it never a problem for linux users... because everyone that used linux logs on using the root account?? Honestly if UAC is that big of a problem then simply disable it and quit complaining about it. UAC gets less annoying once most of the programs are done being installed, and should theoretically be even less of a nuisance once programs are changed so they install without attempting to use administrative privileges for tasks that don't even need them.

The only thing I'd lay the blame on is MS should have done a version of UAC much sooner... in which case more users wouldn't of had a problem with it now.

MS probably should get at least a bit of the blame, but software companies and hardware developers certainly had a very long time to prepare for Longhorn *cough* err Vista, 'scuze me.

If you are going to blast Microsoft then at least blast them on something they especially deserve it for. The broken and driver plagued "in-place upgrades" that almost never result in a clean, smooth working install in most situations, or the absurd hype on Readyboost which will slow down instead of speed up Vista for users of 1GB+ RAM... Even while the complete removal of the relic HAL was needed, which is what breaks hardware acceleration for sound, you could even blame MS for not working out a new method of replacing what they broke with a some form of alternative.

jmke

you seem to have ignored the slow to disk to disk copy. UAC is a problem, it's not implement as the Linux root/user relation, and it's not a "damned if you do/don't" situation at all. I turned it off, yep. But that doesn't make UAC a plague for companies who have to design software to make it work with the least amount of intrusion for users, you know how stupid some can be.

then there is bug like these (SLI/CF) and others which make it a BETA OS at best;

I'm not anti-vista, I'm anti-being-beta-tester-and-having-pay-for-it Vista

__________________